1. A sales contract concluded between the Defendant and B as of December 16, 2013 regarding the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 20, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with B as KRW 10,000,000, interest rate of KRW 4.96% per annum (15.47% per annum as interest) and entered into a loan agreement capable of making occasional loans and repayment. The Plaintiff agreed on May 17, 201 to increase the limit to KRW 20,000,000.

However, B did not pay the above loan obligation since December 29, 2013.

(B) As of February 21, 2014, B bears the principal and interest obligation of KRW 20,734,158 to the Plaintiff).

B On December 16, 2013, immediately before the commencement of the loan year, the above loan year entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant on the same day.

C. In addition, the business owner, who entered into the instant sales contract, was the representative director who operates the Company C (hereinafter “Travel”), and the travel agent resigned from the office of the representative director on November 18, 2013 and sold the travel agent (after that, the travel agent was eventually closed). The travel agent owned the D Apartment 207 Dong 403 Dong, Jin-si, and sold it to E on November 21, 2013. Although the pertinent real estate and the instant land were owned by the property, it was considerably exceeded the liability compared to the value of the property.

【Partial Grounds for Recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each documentary evidence), the witness B’s partial testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the Defendant for the purpose of doing harm to the obligee under the circumstance that B was in excess of the obligation; and (b) the fact that there was no actual receipt of the purchase price, the Plaintiff concealed the property for the purpose of evading the obligation;

As to this, the defendant is the husband of G, who is the husband of the defendant.